The Role of Individual Differences in the Accuracy of Confidence Judgments

Generally, self-assessment of accuracy in the cognitive domain produces overconfidence, whereas self-assessment of visual perceptual judgments results in under-confidence. Despite contrary empirical evidence, in models attempting to explain those phenomena, individual differences have often been disregarded. The authors report on 2 studies in which that shortcoming was addressed. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 520) completed a large number of cognitive-ability tests. Results indicated that individual differences provide a meaningful source of overconfidence and that a metacognitive trait might mediate that effect. In further analysis, there was only a relatively small correlation between test accuracy and confidence bias. In Experiment 2 (N = 107 participants), both perceptual and cognitive ability tests were included, along with measures of personality. Results again indicated the presence of a confidence factor that transcended the nature of the testing vehicle. Furthermore, a small relationship was found between that factor and some self-reported personality measures. Thus, personality traits and cognitive ability appeared to play only a small role in determining the accuracy of self-assessment. Collectively, the present results suggest that there are multiple causes of miscalibration, which current models of over- and underconfidence fail to encompass.     

An Event History Analysis of First-Term Soldier Attrition

The study of attrition has largely focused on identifying demographic or biographic characteristics that predict whether soldiers complete their enlistment term. As a result, much is known about who attrites. Less is known about why soldiers attrite. This research assessed the influence of two psychological factors on U.S. Army soldier attrition: self-reported confidence that one could complete one’s term of service and ambivalence regarding the decision to enlist. The study sample consisted of first-term enlisted soldiers (N = 14,808) who were respondents to Army surveys. Results of fitting three longitudinal models indicated that confidence in being able to complete one’s term of obligation was more predictive of attrition for those reporting greater ambivalence regarding the decision to enlist. This effect was significant throughout a 3-year period. This work adds to our understanding of attrition by highlighting the role of confidence and ambivalence. Implications for strategies to reduce attrition are discussed.     

α系数的区间估计方法比较

多数情况下,α系数可以用来评价测验信度。诸多研究建议,在报告测验信度的时候应当包括其置信区间。通过蒙特卡洛模拟研究,比较了7种α系数区间估计方法,包括Fisher法、Bonett-02法、Bonett-10法、精确Koning-Franses法、渐近ID法、渐近Koning-Franses法和ADF法。结果发现Bonett-10法和精确Koning-Franses法较好,它们的结果相差很小。这两种方法都比较简单,只需要样本的α值、测验题数、被试人数及F临界值,通过简单的运算便可得到α系数的置信区间。     

The effect of viewing distance on empirical discriminability and the confidence–accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification

The distance from which an eyewitness views a perpetrator is a critical factor for eyewitness identification, but has received little research attention. We presented three mock-crime videos to participants, varying distance to three perpetrators (3, 10, or 20 m). Across two experiments, increased distance reduced empirical discriminability in the form of a mirror effect, such that correct identifications decreased while false identifications increased. Moreover, high confidence identifications were associated with high accuracy at 3 m (Experiment 1 and 2) and 10 m (Experiment 2), but not at 20 m. We conclude that eyewitnesses may be less likely to identify a perpetrator viewed at a distance, and also more likely to falsely identify an innocent suspect. Furthermore, there may be certain boundary conditions associated with distance and the impact it has on the confidence–accuracy relationship. More research is needed to elucidate the effect of estimator variable manipulations on the confidence–accuracy relationship.     

Metacognitive monitoring and control processes in children with autism spectrum disorder: Diminished judgement of confidence accuracy

Metacognition consists of monitoring processes (the ability to accurately represent one’s own mental states) and control processes (the ability to control one’s cognitive processes effectively). Both processes play vital roles in self-regulated learning. However, currently it is unclear whether these processes are impaired in individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). This study aimed to assess metacognition in thirty-two children with ASD, and 30 IQ-/age-matched neurotypical children, using a judgment of confidence task. It was found that children with ASD showed diminished accuracy in their judgments of confidence, indicating metacognitive monitoring impairments in ASD. Children with ASD also used monitoring to influence control processes significantly less than neurotypical children, despite little evidence of impairments in overall control ability.     

测验同质性系数及其区间估计

在决定将多维测验分数合并成测验总分时, 应当考虑测验同质性。如果同质性太低, 合成总分没有什么意义。同质性高低可以用同质性系数来衡量。用来计算同质性系数的模型是近年来受到关注的双因子模型(既有全局因子又有局部因子), 测验的同质性系数定义为测验分数方差中全局因子分数方差所占的比例。本文用Delta法推导出计算同质性系数的标准误公式, 进而计算其置信区间。提供了简单的计算同质性系数及其置信区间的程序。用一个例子说明如何估计同质性系数及其置信区间, 通过模拟比较了用Delta法和用Bootstrap法计算的置信区间, 发现两者差异很小。     

参数和非参数Bootstrap方法的简单中介效应分析比较

采用数据模拟技术比较了(偏差校正和未校正的)参数和非参数Bootstrap方法在简单中介效应分析中的表现。结果表明,1)偏差校正的Bootstrap法的总体表现优于未校正的Bootstrap方法,但在某些条件下会高估第Ⅰ类错误率,导致在 时的置信区间偏差较大。2)参数Bootstrap方法优于非参数Bootstrap方法,偏差校正的参数百分位残差Bootstrap法的综合表现最优,且具有适用范围广,对原始样本依赖性小的优点,最具实用性。     

Action Phases and Goal Setting: Being Optimistic After Decision Making Without Getting into Trouble

According to Gollwitzer's mindset theory, people in postdecisional action phases, who are about to implement a chosen action or goal, are supposed to be more optimistic than people in predecisional action phases, who are deliberating on different actions or goals (P. M. Gollwitzer, 1990). The present experiments were designed to test the hypothesis that postdecisional people are optimistic in a way that does not set them up for failure and disappointment. In three experiments it is shown that people who are in an implemental mindset neither set more demanding goals than do deliberative people nor do they inflate their performance predictions. Instead, they are more confident in reaching their goals and more cautious when predicting future performance. This behavior is interpreted in terms of a strategy that allows people to hold optimistic beliefs without facing the danger of exaggerated goal setting or a disconfirmation of their beliefs.